Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/05/10/20:10:56
--=-A4WzdaEAX/szu81DGISY
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, 2003-05-11 at 02:57, Charles Wilson wrote:
> I take it you're in favor of adding cygipc to the distro (or are you=20
> speaking academically)?
Frankly, I don't care whether it's in or not. The issues with cygipc
getting integrated to the 'kernel', and with it fulfilling some corner
cases wihtout such integration are moot while no-one has the time to
progress cygdaemon's SysVIPC code.=20
And heck, so far cygdaemon does the tty security thing that was it's
original requirement, as well as all the shm functions, all the key
functions, and some of the sem functions. All with security set
correctly on NT, and via mode_t values on 9x. Fork safe. Dirty process
aborts were mostly handled (which I don't think cygipc handles at
*all*). Conceptually it was multi-user ready (i.e. run with 'switch
users' or Terminal Services safely).=20
=46rom memory cygdaemon had to be 80% complete when I handed over
maintainership. I simply didn't have time to complete it.=20
I've no idea whats happened since, as I haven't been tracking commits to
it - the exact same lack of time that prompted me to step down as
maintainer.
Again, IIRC, it was slower than cygipc at the time - but *no*
performance tuning had been attempted, so I don't find that surprising.
Given the above, it should be clear that IF I had the time do some
something about it, I'd finish off cygdaemon, and THEN I'd have the
right to an opinion about cygipc coming into the distribution.
Rob
--=20
GPG key available at: <http://users.bigpond.net.au/robertc/keys.txt>.
--=-A4WzdaEAX/szu81DGISY
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQA+vZT7I5+kQ8LJcoIRAv6vAJ9KNZZ3sXqqswW/ufEf936NRdiUGQCfaVX8
O7KW/W5zDddXVJYpddX5d1Q=
=nEvH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-A4WzdaEAX/szu81DGISY--
- Raw text -